EPA tentatively agrees to pesticide use restrictions near Bay Area endangered species habitat

Share this:

An endangered California clapper rail forages along a mud bank with the incoming tide at the Laumeister Marsh unit of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge on Wednesday April 15, 2009 in East Palo Alto, California. The California clapper rail was listed as a federal endangered species in 1970. As of 2007 their numbers were thought to be below 1000. After years of hunting and habitat loss the California clapper rail can only be found in the San Francisco Bay Area.( Aric Crabb /Staff)

The Environmental Protection Agency last week announced its tentative settlement agreement to temporarily ban in eight Bay Area counties the use of 74 pesticides in habitat set aside for 11 imperiled species.

The agency also agreed to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to rigorously assess any risks posed by these pesticides to the endangered or threatened species.

That latter step will clear up uncertainty over the effects of these powerful chemicals on animal species deemed near the brink of survival, said Jeff Miller, a spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco, a nonprofit that filed a 2007 lawsuit leading to the settlement.

“The end game is to get them to actually conduct the assessments of what the actual effects are,” Miller said.

The EPA, under the Endangered Species Act, is required to subject pesticides to extra scrutiny if they’re used on or near critical habitat set aside for imperiled species. In its lawsuit, the environmental group contended that the agency for years has failed to take this extra step. The group settled a similar case with the EPA in 2006, which prohibited the use of 66 pesticides statewide in and adjacent to threatened California red-legged frog habitat.

The EPA, however, defended its approval process for pesticides.

“Scientifically supported findings are the foundation of our regulatory decisions,” said Enesta Jones, an EPA spokeswoman. “The agency intends to ensure that all registered pesticides are evaluated consistent with requirements of the Endangered Species Act.”

Allen James, president of RISE, or Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, said the group supports efforts to require the EPA to subject pesticides to all required reviews.

“We have always supported full implementation of the law,” said James, whose trade group represents pesticide suppliers and users in urban areas. “We want them to do it, we need them to do it as rapidly, as scientifically, as possible.”

But James strongly objects to the proposed halt on using the 74 pesticides in imperiled species habitat until the scientific review is completed, estimated in 2014.

“It brings commerce to a halt,” he said. And homeowners living on or near the imperiled species habitat will have fewer options for battling termites, weeds and other pests, he said.

Miller countered that few homeowners would be affected.

“Very few people have homes within endangered species habitat,” Miller said. He also said those homeowners have numerous other options for battling the pests.

The EPA has opened the settlement agreement to public comment through July 16, and will consider petitions for amending it. The two parties would go back the negotiating table to agree to any new terms.

“We do not feel this is an equitable agreement, and we will enter our comments,” James said.

The proposed settlement can be viewed, and comments posted, by visiting tinyurl.com/l95swf.

While only land set aside for endangered species would be affected under the proposed terms, James said that amounts to “a tremendous amount of acreage.” Miller said it’s largely farm and vineyard operators that will be affected.

James said there’s no evidence that any of the pesticides are actually causing harm to the listed animals. The lawsuit, he said, focused on a procedural flaw within the EPA.

The environmental group, however, has no doubt that these pesticides have worsened the condition of the imperiled wildlife.

“There is very good evidence of pesticide harm to the species,” Miller said. “Obviously there are a lot threats to species: climate change, habitat loss, invasive species. But for some species pesticides are a pretty big factor, especially amphibians.”

He cited the center’s 2006 report, “Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife: San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides,” which critiques EPA handling of endangered species’ exposure to pesticides.